[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 27 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2436-S2438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE BUDGET AND THE CHALLENGE OF CONTROLLING DEFICITS
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, to put this debate on the budget
situation in context, I hope that we will keep in mind the difficulty
that Congress has had over the years, and each administration in recent
years, in trying to cope with this very, very difficult challenge of
controlling deficits.
In 1960, for example, interest payments on our national debt amounted
to 6 percent of the Federal budget. Today, that figure has grown to 16
percent. That is the percentage of the total expenditures that will be
required to be appropriated and paid in interest on the current debt in
the next fiscal year, according to the President's budget.
Last year, the Federal Government paid a total of $203 billion in
interest on the existing debt. The budget just submitted by the
President calls for spending $257 billion in the next fiscal year on
interest on the accumulated debt.
By comparison, Senators might be interested to know that if these
interest costs are as they are projected to be next year by the
President's budget, we will spend just about as much on interest
payments as we will on national defense.
The national defense dollars that are requested by the President to
be appropriated for our Nation's security next year are at $262 billion
in the President's budget; the interest payments, $257 billion, a $5
billion difference. In a $1.6 trillion budget, the percentage is about
the same, 16 percent.
It seems to me that to believe we are going to be able to meet this
challenge of controlling deficits more effectively without some
requirement to do so or some new procedures in place such as this
constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget is a triumph of
hope over experience.
One item that I received in my mail this week from a constituent was
very interesting from a historical perspective. Andy Halbrook is a
resident of Greenville, MS. His father, David Halbrook, has been a
member of our State legislature for a number of years and one of our
important influences in State government. He sent me a Reader's Digest
article of July 1979 which talked about the origin of the movement for
State legislators to petition the Government for a constitutional
convention to require a balanced budget.
I am going to read the first paragraph and put the rest of it in the
Record with this letter for the information of Senators.
In Ollie Mohamed's Belzoni, Miss., department store--
Ollie Mohamed was a State Senator at the time--
a group was discussing Federal spending, inflation and
Congress's perennial inability to balance the budget. State
legislator David Halbrook spoke of his new grandchild: ``That
baby is going to have to pay for the things I'm enjoying. It
ought to be the other way around. I ought to leave the world
a little better for him.''
This article goes on to talk about the conversation that then led to,
well, what are we going to do about it? And one of them got the
Constitution down and read here where it is provided the State
legislatures can petition the Congress to convene a constitutional
convention to amend the Constitution, and they decided that it ought to
be done. And so David Halbrook led the effort in the Mississippi
legislature to have that resolution passed. Then some other States got
involved. The National Taxpayers Union got involved. And according to
this article, over a period of years they almost reached the point
where they were successful. They were four States short at the time
this article was written in 1979.
Andrew--``Andy''--Halbrook, David's son, suggests that we ought to
name this legislation the ``David Halbrook Act,'' requiring the
Congress to balance the budget as a matter of constitutional amendment.
I think it is a good suggestion.
I ask unanimous consent that Andy Halbrook's letter be printed in the
Record, along with the article from the Reader's Digest.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Greenville, MS,
February 2, 1995.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: The balanced budget amendment is one
of the most important pieces of legislation that will be
considered in my lifetime and possibly in the lifetime of my
children. It will have a much tougher row to hoe in the
Senate than in the House. In light of this I would like to
offer a suggestion that could perhaps significantly help to
assure its passage.
In positioning for public approval, acceptance and support
a product or a service or even a piece of legislation,
perception is reality. Unless the populace can be
overwhelmingly convinced to support something as broad-
ranging as the balanced budget amendment it may be doomed to
failure no matter how good its attributes. The way to get the
popular support needed to be indomitably successful in this
venture is to personalize it and to make everyone realize
this is a grass-roots idea from outside the beltway. In light
of this please consider the following:
The balanced budget amendment was spawned in Belzoni,
Mississippi by my father, Rep. David Halbrook and former
Senator Ollie Mohamed. Please see the attached Reader's
Digest article in testimony to this fact.
Due to his continuity of service in the Mississippi
Legislature and active leadership roles in the American
Legislative Exchange Council, the National Conference of
State Legislators, the Southern Legislative Conference and
other organizations, David Halbrook has been the torch-bearer
for this idea since its inception.
Based on these facts I am asking that you consider naming
the balanced budget amendment ``The Halbrook Amendment''.
This will do many things to accelerate and maintain the
momentum of this legislation.
[[Page S2437]] David Halbrook is a life-long Democrat.
Putting his name on this amendment could greatly enhance
bipartisan support of this endeavor.
David Halbrook is a common man with uncommon talents and
ideas, a business man, a farmer and a father concerned about
his children's and grandchildren's future. The mainstream
will immediately identify with him and his purpose for
starting this process.
By putting a name and a face with something that can be as
nebulous to the common man as a piece of federal legislation,
such as was done with the Brady Bill, the public's perception
of the process at hand can be immediately transformed into a
tidal wave of support.
David Halbrook is a life-long Mississippian. Mississippi is
in the midst of one of the most dynamic economic growth
cycles in the nation. These factors could be coupled when
titling this legislation the Halbrook Amendment to bring
recognition to your leadership in bringing Mississippi to its
current status as a good place to do business.
Finally, David Halbrook deserves this honor. He personally
laid much of the groundwork for what is being debated today
on Capitol Hill. I well remember his many trips to testify
before one state legislative assembly after another in order
to get them to put forth the call for a constitutional
convention to take up this matter. As a seven term Democrat
he is the senior member of the Mississippi House of
Representatives. This adds credibility to his commonality.
Most importantly, he is a loving and devoted father that has
always tried to do the right thing by making this world a
better place for his children along with everyone else.
In closing, I am requesting this not only because I have
been taught to ``honor thy father and thy mother'', but I
have also been taught to do the right thing. In my opinion, a
balanced budget amendment is the right thing to do, and by
personalizing this piece of legislation, its chances of
passage will be greatly enhanced. I appreciate your
consideration of my request and ideas.
Sincerely,
Andrew L. ``Andy'' Halbrook,
Concerned Constituent.
____
[From the Reader's Digest, July 1979]
A Constitutional Amendment To Balance the Budget?
(By Eugene H. Methvin)
In Ollie Mohamed's Belzoni, Miss., department store, a
group was discussing federal spending, inflation and
Congress's perennial inability to balance the budget. State
legislator David Halbrook spoke of his new grandchild: ``That
baby is going to have to pay for the things I'm enjoying. It
ought to be the other way around. I ought to leave the world
a little better for him.''
That gave Mohamed, a former legislator, an idea. He found a
copy of the Constitution and began to read from Article V:
``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of
the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case shall be valid * * * when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States. * * *''
That day in 1974, a national crusade was born to compel
Congress by constitutional amendment to balance the federal
budget. (An exception would occur in national emergencies,
when both houses could agree by two-thirds vote to permit
deficit spending.) A few months later, Representative
Halbrook got the Mississippi state legislature to pass a
resolution calling for a constitutional convention. Acting
independently, lawmakers in Maryland, Delaware and North
Dakota passed similar resolutions. The National Taxpayers
Union, a feisty new citizens' lobby, took up the cause, and
by April 1979 convention-call resolutions had been passed
by 30 states. If four more act, Congress will be required
to call a constitutional convention.
The pressure is growing. CBS and the New York Times
interviewed voters last November and found that 82 percent of
Democrats and 86 percent of Republicans favor a balanced-
budget amendment. Five Presidential contenders (Republicans
Reagan, Connally, Dole, Baker and Democrat Brown) have
endorsed it. Observed Oregon senate president Jason Boe,
``This thing is coming like a 100-car freight train at
Congress, and they haven't done a thing about it.''
The realization that the budget-balancers are only four
states away from a constitutional convention has startled and
disturbed many Washington politicians. Senate Budget
Committee Chairman Edmund Muskie (D., Maine) growled that if
state legislators continued their rebellion, Congress might
balance the budget by cutting the $83 billion in grants and
revenue sharing it gives states and localities. House Speaker
Tip O'Neill's son Thomas, the Massachusetts lieutenant
governor, took the lead in organizing an anti-amendment
coalition of the special-interest groups that benefit most
from deficit spending, including the AFL-CIO, the National
Education Association and other public employee unions.
President Carter assailed the proposition as ``political
gimmickry'' and formed a White House task force to lobby
state legislators.
Washington mobilization had effect. The Montana senate
bowed to lobbying efforts and in March defeated an amendment
resolution. And the Administration has promised an all-out
fight in each of the 15 state legislatures that have yet to
act.
Clearly, the battle lines are drawn between the Washington
establishment and a disillusioned grassroots groundswell.
Never before in the nation's history has so widespread a
movement for constitutional change developed over such
fundamental
issues as the proper size of government and the way our
elected representatives wield the powers to tax and spend.
If the convention drive succeeds, says The Wall Street
Journal the people would be saying that they have finally
decided Congress can't be trusted with their money.''
Few even on Capitol Hill dispute that there is genuine
ground for wondering these days. Between 1946 and 1961,
Congress managed seven deficits and seven surpluses, with an
overall approximate balance--and low inflation. But in the 19
years since, Congress has balanced the budget only once, in
1919, and the net deficit over those years has been a
aggering $377 billion. Washington has continued the deficits
in boom times as well as bust. This year, President Carter
offered a 1980 budget with a $29 billion deficit--plus $12
billion more in ``off budget items--and called it
``austere.''
Two decades of Congressional and White House profligacy
have helped produce severe inflation that threatens to halve
the value of every dollar in five and a half years. Obvious
victims include the poor and the elderly, but in the end,
everybody suffers. The average family last year paid almost
$800 interest on past government deficits, and inflation
robbed another $800 from its purchasing power.
In 1976, running against the Washington establishment,
candidate Jimmy Carter promised to balance the budget by
1979. Now that President Carter has proffered a $29 billion
deficit, the public is turning to the constitutional
amendment as a solution. The Associated Press found in a poll
last February that ``distrust of policitians is so deep that
Americans do not believe their elected officials will act.
Seventy percent said politicians will not work to wipe out
the deficit.''
Even without a constitutional convention, the budget-
balancers may get what they want. State legislatures have
used the convention call in the past to lever balky
Congresses into proposing needed amendments. In fact, no
amendment has ever come
directly from the convention approach. State convention
calls have helped prompt Congress to submit amendments to
provide for direct election of Senators, repeal
Prohibition, limit a President to two terms and provide
for Presidential succession in case of disability.
In this session of Congress, 203 Representatives and 39
Senators support a wide variety of amendment proposals which
they want Congress to submit directly to the states,
circumventing a convention call. (Three-fourths of the state
legislature, 38, are required to ratify an amendment.) One
group would require a ``super-majority'' of either two-thirds
or three-fourths of the members of Congress, in an emergency
such as war or deep depression, to vote for a deficit budget.
Otherwise, the legislators would have to match outlays with
revenues. If revenues fell short, Congress would have to
slash spending or impose a surtax. Knowing they would have to
go on record in favor of higher taxes, the legislators would
be certain to look harder at some of their spending ideas.
Another proposal has come from Senators Richard Stone (D.,
Fla.) and H. John Heinz (R., Pa.). Their amendment, drafted
by a group including Novel Prize-winning economist Milton
Friedman, would limit federal spending increases to the
growth in the Gross National Product. If inflation is greater
than three percent, the proposal would impose an even tighter
limit on spending.
President Carter and Democratic leaders in Congress protest
that any constitutional amendment would ``tie the hands'' of
the nation in time of crisis, since a determined minority of
either house could block needed appropriations. Proponents
respond that a stubborn minority blocking obviously needed
action would be swiftly punished at the polls. Congress could
still act by majority vote in an emergency by levying taxes
to finance needed spending; a minority could only block
deficit spending.
Whatever the outcome of these proposed amendments, and the
call for a constitutional convention, the balance-the-budget
movement has triggered a mighty debate. Says the National
Taxpayers Union's Jim Davidson: ``As people see their real
spending power decline, this issue will not fade away.'' Adds
Sen. Gary Hart (D., Colo.), ``It's a sorry state of affairs
when the American people are demanding a constitutional
convention because they don't trust us, and Congress is
saying, `No, you can't have one because we don't trust
you.'''
This contentious scene would not faze the men who wrote the
Constitution, for the debate has focused public attention
once again on some eternal verities about public power, its
exercise, abuse and safeguards. What healthier way for
Americans to celebrate the approaching 200th birthday of
their Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. What is the order of business we are in at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business.
[[Page S2438]] MOVEMENT TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE
BUDGET
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from
Mississippi has just spoken of, the issue of the State legislator
beginning the movement to petition Congress.
When I was a State senator in Idaho in the 1970's, I became involved
in that very movement and actually brought a resolution before the
State senate, and it passed the Idaho Legislature, to petition Congress
for a balanced budget amendment because clearly at that time, at the
State legislative level, as we were looking at what the Congress of the
United States was doing and what the Federal Government was doing, we
were growing increasingly fearful that debt would continue to mount and
power of the Government at the central level in Washington would
continue to grow, and it would, if you will, deny or weaken the ability
of State legislatures and State governments to act responsibly.
When I then came to Congress in 1980 and started serving in 1981,
that movement was well underway. And as the Senator from Mississippi
has just mentioned, we were at that time four States short of the
necessary requirements under article V of the Constitution from
petitioning and therefore forcing the Congress to bring forth a
resolution convening a constitutional convention.
Citizens across the country, though, at that time grew increasingly
fearful of a constitutional convention, as to whether you could limit
it to a single issue like a balanced budget amendment, and that if you
opened up a constitutional convention and Congress in essence handed
the power to craft a constitutional amendment to an autonomous body, we
might see other issues come forth that many of us would not like.
So that movement stalled out at about a remaining two States and it
began to back off. Congresswoman Barbara Conable of New York at that
time was a leader. I became a leader involved and traveled around to
the States encouraging them to continue to do so, not because I wanted
a constitutional convention but because I thought it was terribly
important we show that the second portion of article V of the
Constitution remains a viable power inside the Constitution but that
the alternative--and that is the first portion of article V--would be
that Congress can propose amendments to the citizens on the
Constitution and that we were in essence the always-standing, always-
in-power constitutional convention, that at any time with the necessary
supermajority vote, the Congress itself could bring forth an amendment
to be ratified by the States.
I say to the Senator from Mississippi, as he well knows, that is
exactly what we are doing at this time, and that is why some of us have
worked as long as we have to assure that this process go forward and
why we are so concerned today we do not put anything in the path of
this amendment that could trip it up in what is, I believe, a
constitutional responsibility on our part to provide a clean, simply
directed amendment to the people.
We have seen an amendment--and thank goodness just this week the
Senate has denied it--that would have said prior to sending forth an
amendment we have to do the following things. That is not what article
V says. It says you put forth an amendment and it goes straight to the
States because we can only propose. It is the States that have the
responsibility, or in essence the citizens themselves, to ratify an
amendment because the Constitution as the organic law of our land is
the people's law. We operate under it.
That is why we are here today and will be for the next week or so
debating a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution because it is
the adjusting, if you will, of the organic law of our land that governs
us, that governs the central government, that controls the Congress of
the United States, and it is the ability of the people to speak up. So
what we are doing here is extending or offering to the people of this
country the opportunity to speak on the issue of how the Federal
Government manages its fiscal house and its budget. And I wish to thank
the Senator from Mississippi for recognizing as he has that on all of
these kinds of issues they really begin at the grassroots. It is the
people at the very lowest level of our governments stepping forward and
saying we believe the central government ought to change; it is doing
things in an improper way, and the way we will change them is to adjust
the Constitution of our country to cause them to act differently.
That was back in the 1970's, and it has taken now over two decades to
bring forth this issue to the point where it has now passed the House
of Representatives and we are within weeks of voting on it here with a
strong likelihood that it can pass the Congress of the United States
and pass the Senate and it will go forth to the people. So those
citizens of Mississippi, through their State legislators, will have an
opportunity to decide how the central government of our country ought
to be run in the area of its fiscal responsibilities and matters.
____________________